Spirit Airlines Collective Bargaining Agreement

By December 17, 2020 No Comments

After careful consideration of the allegations contained in the ALPA CAS, the Tribunal finds that ALPA has not made a plausible request for postponement. 152, first. In other words, ALPA is not entitled to the discharge it wishes, as it considers the SAC to be in the most favourable light to ALPA and accepts all of its factual assertions as true. The Tribunal reviews each instance in alleged bad faith and, below, each of alPA`s arguments. Third, ALPA argues that Spirit`s claims are “unpleasant” and therefore in bad faith because they impose conditions of employment and create “illusory” conditions for pilots as they see fit. See id. at 16. ALPA notes that “[t]he [t]he Spirit or any other pilot agreement on the extent of management control and discretion required today” is noted, see id. at 15, and that “Spirit requires some discretion of management over wages and working conditions that do not exist in any other pilot agreement in the sector.” See id. In addition, ALPA asserts that “the agreement sought by Spirit would hardly leave the pilots with the fundamental administrative and intellectual property rights enjoyed by the current Spirit CBA and any other group of pilots represented in the United States,” and that it is “strong evidence that [Spirit] operates exclusively under the pretext of negotiations and has no real desire to bridge differences and reach a genuine agreement.” See id. ALPA notes in his letter that Kane Spirit has said three times that Spirit`s proposals are not the basis for an agreement. The right of employees to organize under the RLA is US45.C codified. Paragraph 152, paragraph 4, states that “workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively through one of the representatives of their choice.” Section 152, third party, says: ” [re]epresentatives .

. . . are appointed by the respective parties without interference, without influence, or by both parties because of the appointment of representatives by the other party; and neither party can interfere, influence or force the other party in its election of representatives. Spirit then argues that its request for further cost reductions during the September 2008 and January 2009 rounds of negotiations does not reflect bad faith, as its request was motivated by a change in circumstances, namely the increase in fuel prices and the continued deterioration of the local and national economy. Spirit cites cases in which the courts have found that the amended circumstances warrant higher requirements. Spirit also invites the Court to take note of the fact that between September 2008 and January 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell from 11,019.69 to 7,949.05, and (2) six U.S. airlines terminated their operations and two others went bankrupt since the parties began negotiations on a new CBA. Spirit says its “cost-cutting proposals are aimed at the survival of the company, which is ultimately in the best interests of its employees and is consistent with reductions across the country.” See Spiritual Rule 12 (b) (6) Word. 15-16.

ALPA and Spirit are parties to a CBA that regulates the employment of spirit pilots. The KBA came into force on January 31, 2003 and was amended on January 31, 2007 (i.e. open to negotiations). The parties began negotiations in October 2006 for a successor agreement to the RLA and these negotiations, which are currently under the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) and are overseen by a federal mediator, are still ongoing. AlPA argues that Spirit rejected “in the blink of an eye any [temporary] agreement reached during the first two years of negotiations,” including those dealing with non-economic issues. ALPA says this proves the bad faith of germs.